Serrato v. Allison
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 5:23-cv-03203
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Serrato v. Allison, Judge Corley found a prisoner’s safety claim plausible and ordered service, allowing the federal civil-rights case to proceed.
Salvador Serrato’s federal civil-rights case was allowed to proceed past initial screening. Kathleen Allison and Craig Koenig were ordered to be served and were given deadlines for a dispositive motion and related filings.
What happened
In Serrato v. Allison, Salvador Serrato, a California prisoner without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights case under federal law against Kathleen Allison and others. The court screened the complaint as required in prisoner cases.
Serrato alleged that policies integrating inmates from different security threat groups led to an assault by other inmates and the use of pepper spray against him. The court found that these allegations could support a claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the complaint served on Allison and Warden Craig Koenig. The court also set deadlines for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other case-ending motion and for the parties to respond. The order did not decide whether Serrato will ultimately win.
The detailed version
- Serrato v. Allison · No. 5:23-cv-03203
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 25, 2023
Background
Salvador Serrato, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had separately allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. The defendants named in the caption included Kathleen Allison and others; the conclusion specifically directed service on Allison and Warden Craig Koenig.
Screening standard
Under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a prisoner’s complaint against governmental entities or officials and identify claims that may proceed. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. Because Serrato had no lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally. It also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely speculative.
Claim allowed to proceed
Serrato alleged that the defendants’ policies of integrating inmates from different security threat groups led to his assault by other inmates and to his being pepper-sprayed. The court held that, when read liberally, these allegations stated a cognizable claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
Order
The court ordered that Allison be served at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and that Koenig be served at the California Training Facility. Service was to proceed through the department’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases, with service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary.
The court directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was issued, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Serrato’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion was filed, and defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.
The order also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Serrato to serve copies of his court communications on defendants or their counsel, and reminded him to keep the court informed of any address change and comply with court orders. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of the safety claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.